Civ community euphoric about Civ5?

[Handel]

When it was all done and said, they put the effort into Civ IV, and we got a great game. It took them a while, but it was worth it. I can only hope the same can be said about Civ V in a few years.

I doubt they will fix Civ V. The mere fact they are trying to convince (who actually they are trying to convince?) that it is a great game shows they are in a state of denial.
Besides the problems with the game are due to the very basics being wrong. The combat looks like incompetent borrow from the first Panzer General (being released somewhat 18 years ago), the strategic gameplay changes are obviously intended to make the game appealing to a larger range of players (miscalculated greed) and the concept of city-states is clearly intended to fix the old problem with the city spamming (Stalin will be proud of their decision - it is exactly his way of thinking - "no man, no problem")

[dannubis]

Blackbox? As is closed to insight? You haven't tried the last patch then.

Nikolai. There is no way I can influence diplomacy even if you get the basic "they don't like you because... The only time when it works for me is when I shy away from using the "more advanced" features. That is a blackbox for me.

[rah]

Civ community euphoric about Civ5?

Yes, they're definitely in a state of denial.

[Robert Plomp]

Civ5 is a huge step forward for the civ franchise.
It comes with many new very interesting concepts. Civ4:BtS was more or less finished.
I see Civ5 as a Civ3 version, new ideas but not yet fully satisfying implemented.
But new ideas are very important. Civ4 wouldn't have been that good in the end without Civ3.

I am euphoric about Firaxis attempts to really renew the genre and not just recycle the old game with new graphics.
I fully agree with ming. Civ5's main problem is not the bugs or the bad AI, it's boringness.
One more turn is all about: I want to see next turns result of this turns action. (or past turns action). I want to get the reward of the pasture, the round world, the wonder, the corporation, the great prophet, etc. etc.
Civ5 doesn't give enough rewards.

And I also agree with ming that the tech tree is too straight.
Personally I would love it to see dead-end techs and different branches. One should be forced to choose. That's a terrific way to make every game different.

Regarding specs: I think that graphics designers shouldn't focus so much on building something that only the newest machines can run. It takes away so much negative feedback after release. Of course; it's a marketing tool: 'look how cool our graphics are'. But I doubt that it compensates for the backlash that comes after the release b/c many fans can't play it.

Civ is not a 3rd person shooter. Every 3rd person shooter is more or less the same; shoot people.
It stands out b/c it's again more beautiful then last iteration. (and of course, there's more, 3ps fans).
Civ is about gameplay in the end. It's not for no reason that people still play civ4.

Civ5 is a huge step forward, but imho it's a step forward to civ6.

[LzPrst]

I agree with Robert, but as an added thought, if Civ5 could not work out its ideas to a functional level then it should not have been published and sold as a whole game!

[wodan11]

I'm a little astonished at the undercurrent here (and that I've seen elsewhere), which basically is to "write off" Civ5 already. That 2k/Firaxis won't do much more improvements (whether in expansions or otherwise).

Though, honestly, it might be better to push forward with Civ6 than to do expansions for Civ5, if there are unimprovable fundamental portions of the Civ5 engine that they decide need tweaking or changing.

[rah]

I don't want to write off civ5 yet, but it needs a lot of work, and if people believe that the community is euphoric about it, they have their heads stuck up their asses and they won't feel the need to fix it if it's not seen as broken. ADMIT it needs the work. If not, then I have no problem writing it off until VI.

[heliodorus04]

Haven't been to Civ forums since the last patch. Played partway through 2 games before I realized that the game is still boring and I can watch 4,000 years go by without any sense of involvement, excitement, or achievement.

The only reason I was back today was to see if new patch announcements might have been made, because the game still = FAIL.
Saw the self-congratulatory 'Magic 8-ball Civ Community says Civ-V is AWESOME' and because I think that is an absurd and bald-faced lie, I thought I'd post in here that the Firaxis pronouncement ought to be called a lie.

Worst game purchase for me in several years, actually.

[jobe]

If this game wasn´t NAMED Civilization no one would have bought it, no one would play it, no one would talk about it and Magazines would have given it a 40-50%.

[wodan11]

I disagree with some of that Jobe. As I understand most magazine reviews just look at the game for 15 minutes and then write their review. 15 minutes isn't enough to show things such as AI deficiencies or late-game crashes, obviously.

[Robert Plomp]

I wouldn't say that civ5 is hopeless.
I would advise the developers to focus on re-configuring many numbers in a very unconversative way.
Not focusing on bug-fixing now, but on making the game a one-more-turn game again by introducing new rewards, like ming said.

Start with the tiles and the bonus resources. Of course that needs a retweaking of the entire game.
Then do the wonders. Increase their effects by a lot.

Civ5 is a very promising game.
It has many great ideas and concepts. It just doesn't reward and that makes it a little bit boring.

And then release the AI code and make it open source. Let the community improve the AI. That worked very well for civ4!

[Handel]

Robert, if they do all you are suggesting it will not be a Civ 5 at all.

[rah]

Yeah, it would be civ IV redux.

[Dinner]

I see nothing wrong with his suggestions as they deal with what is really wrong with Civ5. Namely slow productions, wonders that are worth the same as a monument but cost 20 times more, and the fact that the AI sucks. It would not be Civ4 redux because we'd still have the lame 1UPT and an MP which didn't work.

[Handel]

I see nothing wrong with his suggestions as they deal with what is really wrong with Civ5. Namely slow productions, wonders that are worth the same as a monument but cost 20 times more, and the fact that the AI sucks. It would not be Civ4 redux because we'd still have the lame 1UPT and an MP which didn't work.

It was a sarcasm:-)
To many things are broken in the game to be fixed. And if they are fixed it definitely will not be Civ 5 anymore.

[Ming]

So true... if they actually fixed EVERYTHING that is broken or boring, it wouldn't be Civ V anymore... But it would be Civ, a game we can actually play without being bored to tears

[EPW]

Apolyton has the 'potential' to be the #1 civ site again, not likely though.

[Dinner]

I freely admit that Civ4 is a hard act to follow. Soren basically got it right and what little he didn't get right got fixed in the expansion packs. Civ4 is without a shadow of a doubt the best Civ ever, hands down, and Civ5 can't hold a candle to it. What I really loved was that Civ4 was designed for MP play from the ground up so it shipped with a rock solid MP feature and it contained just about everything MP players were used to seeing plus it was clear the lead designer & his team thought things through so that there were nice touches such as dynamic join, we could see what the ping rate was on other players (and kick players with low ping rates), everything was customizable in MP games, we had the option of direct IP games if we wanted, there was hot seat, there was just about everything a MP player could ask for. To make it even better the UI was designed to function as fast as possible with tons of hot keys so that in the heat of MP play things could get done fast and efficiently so that everyone didn't have to wait around forever. Even though there were tons of other choices (in buildings, in tile improvements, in things to buy, in units, etc...) everything always moved quickly and efficiently so that even at launch there was a massive Civ4 online community. Compare that to Civ5. It's a ****ing ghost town.

[Dinner]

Apolyton has the 'potential' to be the #1 civ site again, not likely though.

Damn, that is harsh.

[Robert Plomp]

The truth is never harsh, and if it is harsh then one is living in a fantasy world

[Robert Plomp]

Robert, if they do all you are suggesting it will not be a Civ 5 at all.

It'll still have hexes, 1UPT, city states, state-level happiness, social policies, etc. etc. etc.
So no: re-introducing the "awe effect" by tweaking the numbers dramatically will not make it Civ4 by far.

[Dinner]

Social policies need to go because they just feel like an alternative tech tree which players have very little control over. I much prefer the civics from Civ4 which you can move between, back and forth, as you please. It gives the player more control and options and that's almost always good. I'd also prefer to go back to city by city happiness because it makes no sense that local issues should cause global problems. The 13 colonies were pissed off at the UK (which would be local unhappiness) but the British did not face rebellions in the rest of their empire because of it so just restore city level unhappiness because it makes more sense.

[SpencerH]

I haven't played Civ 5 but as someone who has played every other version since the original, I think we have to ask, is the civ concept "played out" ? What really needs to happen to Civ 6 (or civ 5 expansion) to make it brilliant again? I keep an eye on the these threads and I dont see an easy answer. If civ is to survive I think it needs a new direction.

[Handel]

I keep an eye on the these threads and I dont see an easy answer. If civ is to survive I think it needs a new direction.

I would say couple suggestions - 1. get the too much political correctness out of it; 2. Let's again build an empire - but make the AI able to handle an empire - so not to be forced to play two different games - the human creates an empire while the AI spams cities as the pitiful AI in the Civ 4. If the combat is going to in a the new way it needs a *lot* of testing. Because the combat now is just a poor implementing of Panzer General combat - BUT this kind of combat is intended for short scenarios - get your pawn on the victory location hexes for 8 turns and you win. Unlike the Civ games where conquering a city usually bears long term consequences. Oh - and lose some of the greed - don't try to make it appealing to the clickfest players.

[wodan11]

For me, break the tech tree mold. Permit MUCH more free research. Just because it happened that way in real life does not necessarily mean that my alternate history in MY game has to evolve that way.

Oh sure, there are some logical constraints, such as researching Biology before Microbiology. But 90% of the "requirements" are nonsense.

Why not allow a "steampunk" civilization? Why not a civilization that was quite advanced in the medical and agricultural sciences (this actually happened, with the Inca, but you can't implement it in Civ, which is wrong) but didn't have the "industrial revolution" advanced in mechanics etc. Why not have a philosophical civilization, where among other things it advanced quite far in civics, arts, etc.

[wodan11]

You know this is really OT and should be moved to its own thread.

[a.kitman]

Social policies need to go because they just feel like an alternative tech tree which players have very little control over. I much prefer the civics from Civ4 which you can move between, back and forth, as you please. It gives the player more control and options and that's almost always good. I'd also prefer to go back to city by city happiness because it makes no sense that local issues should cause global problems. The 13 colonies were pissed off at the UK (which would be local unhappiness) but the British did not face rebellions in the rest of their empire because of it so just restore city level unhappiness because it makes more sense.

social policies should stay. its imho the best thing about civ 5 atm. real choices that will impact your style of play the entire game. the switch a roo that was going on in civ 4 wasnt all that intresting. and it lacked long term impacts other then missing hammers and stuff during anarchy.

and since you say you got little control over it iam guessing you dont play alot of culture games. and i would agree there needs to be someway to get civics other then wonders and culture. like unit exp goes into the honor tree and if your the first to circle the globe you get a commercial policy. stuff like that. but yeah it is a problem that unless you go cultural you dont interact whit a very big part of the game.

i think there should be both global and local happiness. but if i hade to pick id go whit the civ 4 way.

also atm i think the beginning of the game is pretty fun. its just the later stages that turn into a mindless click fest. civ 4 was the complete opposite for me, i liked the end game much more then the beginning.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Civ5 is a huge step backwards, and IMHO I hope they will be going back to Civ IV as a baseline for Civ VI.

corrected.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

I have no idea why everyone is going to BTS as "finished product" - it could be greatly improved to what it was, be it better graphics (they can surely do better than Civ V on that front as well)... hexes, better AI in Civ IV terms - ie they for sure could build further on what the community has done... making ranged weapons hit from one tile away (like Civ V), play with ZOC, improving religion, corporate, espionage play... there is a TON of things to do to make civ V out of civ IV... learn from mods... offer complex play with a busy tech tree, they could provide different difficulty levels by offering harder/weaker AI... different styles of play, add their dumbed down "army becomes a boat which you mass slaughter as they cross the water" as an option if you would want it to work that way... they could also have added city states as a default option to the old game mechanic... etc...

but no... they go out and change most aspects of the game at once, with the effect that the game is unbalanced and finish it off with "crown" 1UPT concept, with the end result that the game is deadly boring for 90% of peple who played anything from Civ I to Civ IV or anything else TBS... which I believe with at least 5-10 million people who have bought a civ game to date, and that is the majority of their audience no matter what kind of game they publish.

[Proteus_MST]

I haven't played Civ 5 but as someone who has played every other version since the original, I think we have to ask, is the civ concept "played out" ? What really needs to happen to Civ 6 (or civ 5 expansion) to make it brilliant again? I keep an eye on the these threads and I dont see an easy answer. If civ is to survive I think it needs a new direction.

Look for example at Alpha Centauri, and look at alternative Civs, especially CtP.
Combine the best elements from them with the best elements Sid Meiers Civ series has to offer (especially part IV of course)
and, of course, don´t forget to add good graphics
and I am sure that (with the right combination) you will get a civ that surpasses every part of Civ that has been published so far